Harley Davidson to move jobs overseas in response to Trump tariffs

[dark_vader]

The rules linked in your sig lead to an error page.
http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/site-news-support/145032-official-forum-rules.html

 

[MaxOfMetal]

The rules linked in your sig lead to an error page.
http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/site-news-support/145032-official-forum-rules.html

Forgot to change it from the forum overhaul a couple months back. My bad.

Here you go:http://www.sevenstring.org/threads/official-forum-rules-read-first.258737/

The gist of it is, this is a guitar forum first, and one that we try to keep somewhat civil. We've had a big problem with serial trolling in the OT and P&CE sections lately (wonder why ) so we've been cracking down a bit more heavily on new users who only post in P&CE.

Again, you're free to share your views, but please do so with civility. Especially since, as a community, we don't know you yet. You might see some long time members lock horns, but it's usually in good humor since many of us have known each other here, and sometimes IRL, for many years.

 

[diagrammatiks]

Oh, so you've met every Trump supporter, surveyed them, and have done the math then? What's that? Oh, you were just being hyperbolic.

actually I'll change that to the majority of people.

but I'll just give you a giant shrug emoji anyway because you have four posts and you came in to a guitar forum just to bump a month old thread.

enjoy your short time here.

 

[dark_vader]

actually I'll change that to the majority of people.

but I'll just give you a giant shrug emoji anyway because you have four posts and you came in to a guitar forum just to bump a month old thread.

enjoy your short time here.

Shrug all you want, the fact is you made an over-generalization about a group of people you disagree with which was meant to be insulting. The fact that you corrected yourself after I pointed that out is commendable though. I'm not sure what relevance the number of posts I have here holds, or that this is a guitar forum. You were already having this conversation on a guitar forum, but whatever, my point is you can have a discussion without insulting the intelligence of an entire group of people simply because you disagree with them politically.

 

[diagrammatiks]

Shrug all you want, the fact is you made an over-generalization about a group of people you disagree with which was meant to be insulting. The fact that you corrected yourself after I pointed that out is commendable though. I'm not sure what relevance the number of posts I have here holds, or that this is a guitar forum. You were already having this conversation on a guitar forum, but whatever, my point is you can have a discussion without insulting the intelligence of an entire group of people simply because you disagree with them politically.

Umm. You seem to know a about me from one post that doesn’t even say what you think it says.

 

[Mathemagician]

The same economists that mocked the idea of 3% economic growth? Mkay.

Are you seriously suggesting that a single politician who has been in office less than two years is responsible for the economic expansion that has been on a tear since 2013/2014?

That’d be like giving the prior president credit for the economic recovery.

No politician gets credit for economic growth. People really need to realize that.

So fucking tired of people who seemingly do not understand basic economics acting like the fucking country is a team sport.

 

[dark_vader]

Are you seriously suggesting that a single politician who has been in office less than two years is responsible for the economic expansion that has been on a tear since 2013/2014?

That’d be like giving the prior president credit for the economic recovery.

No politician gets credit for economic growth. People really need to realize that.

So fucking tired of people who seemingly do not understand basic economics acting like the fucking country is a team sport.

The poster I was originally replying to said that no real economists think Trump's tariffs will have the effect he thinks they will. I never said Trump is solely responsible for the 4%+ economic growth we're seeing now. I was simply pointing out that a lot of those same supposedly super smart economists mocked the shit out of Trump when he said he thought we could get to 3 and even 4% growth.

Calm the fuck down.

 

[Randy]

Watch it...any resemblance of anything questioning or disagreeing with the “in crowd’s” collective opinion on here will get you threatened with a ban...quickly. Saying this will probably get me threatened with a ban lol

Fuck off. How's thats for a response?

Funny thing about moderating here is that I get to say whatever the fuck I want and you don't and if you don't like it go somewhere else.

If you want to chaulk up the bans in this subforum to bias from the mod team and just drop in to kick people in the shins, that's the level of respect you're going to get back.

I only saw this thread because of a reported post that pointed to Vader as potentially the same guy who keeps making duplicate accounts on here. I checked, it's not. Being a low post count member and telling people to calm the fuck down is a little much but besides that, I figured on ignoring this until I saw you whining.

If you have a problem with how this website is moderated, leave. If you have a problem with me or someone else, take it up with us instead of flinging spitballs.

 

[Randy]

Calm the fuck down.

Your politics won't get you banned. This will. If someone says something insulting or as a personal attack, report the post and we'll deal with it.

 

[Randy]

So fucking tired of people who seemingly do not understand basic economics acting like the fucking country is a team sport.

Chill. Yes you framed that as a generality but you know that was targeted at someone in this thread, and that is not conducive to decorum. That was unnecessary.

 

[dark_vader]

Your politics won't get you banned. This will. If someone says something insulting or as a personal attack, report the post and we'll deal with it.

I don't report people on forums because nothing anyone can say to me on the internet could possibly offend me that much, but I get you. His / her response to me seemed overly aggressive so I didn't think what I said was over the top, but you're the boss ;P.

 

[Randy]

I don't report people on forums because nothing anyone can say to me on the internet could possibly offend me that much, but I get you. His / her response to me seemed overly aggressive so I didn't think what I said was over the top, but you're the boss ;P.

It's not about whether or not you're offended, its about things devolving into a shit mess that gets stuck to everyone's shoes and dragged into the actual relevant forums (which they inevitably do). It's just a lot easier to contain things if they're left to us.

In the meantime, feel free to do as you do. I disagree with your overarching narrative but you make good points and well put.

 

[Hollowway]

The same economists that mocked the idea of 3% economic growth? Mkay.

Yes, those economists. It's probably the same as a the doctors who tell you not to smoke, cuz you could get cancer. And yes, I'm aware that the same group of doctors have probably once said something wrong. Congratulations, you've proven that those economists, while more educated than you, are not infallible. It's still a better argument than you've come up with. Which, incidentally, is nothing. Simply pointing out that someone makes a mistake doesn't really make your point. If you have credible evidence to back up your points, let's see it. Otherwise just saying things like, "the economist you cite once made a mistake," and "you haven't talked to a million people" isn't really a strong foundation to prove a point. If you're just coming here to troll, success achieved. But, since you haven't provided any evidence to suggest that the tariffs ARE going to help, I can't really take your arguments seriously. You're just super combative, and want to poke holes in people's arguments with facts that don't actually poke holes in people's arguments. And then if anyone calls you on it, you act like you're not here to troll. When I have a discussion with my friends about something, we're usually open minded and try to disprove anything we disagree with using either evidence, logic, or at the very least beliefs. I'm not used to saying, "Man, girls are tough to figure out," only to have a friend say, "Oh, so you've talked with every girl on earth?!" Or, if I say, "Let's not go camping this weekend, the news says it's going to rain," I don't expect my friends to say, "Oh, the same news that said it was going to snow one day last winter, and it didn't?!"
There are a number of conservatives on here, and I have discussions with them all the time. And probably half the time they give me evidence that I'm wrong. I have no beef with that side. I'm just saying, prove your point, and lay off the snarky comments.

 

[dark_vader]

Yes, those economists. It's probably the same as a the doctors who tell you not to smoke, cuz you could get cancer. And yes, I'm aware that the same group of doctors have probably once said something wrong. Congratulations, you've proven that those economists, while more educated than you, are not infallible. It's still a better argument than you've come up with. Which, incidentally, is nothing. Simply pointing out that someone makes a mistake doesn't really make your point. If you have credible evidence to back up your points, let's see it. Otherwise just saying things like, "the economist you cite once made a mistake," and "you haven't talked to a million people" isn't really a strong foundation to prove a point. If you're just coming here to troll, success achieved. But, since you haven't provided any evidence to suggest that the tariffs ARE going to help, I can't really take your arguments seriously. You're just super combative, and want to poke holes in people's arguments with facts that don't actually poke holes in people's arguments. And then if anyone calls you on it, you act like you're not here to troll. When I have a discussion with my friends about something, we're usually open minded and try to disprove anything we disagree with using either evidence, logic, or at the very least beliefs. If not used to saying, "Man, girls are touch to figure out," only to have a friend say, "Oh, so you've talked with every girl on earth?!" Or, if I say, "Let's not go camping this weekend, the news says it's going to rain," I don't expect my friends to say, "Oh, the same news that said it was going to snow one day last winter, and it didn't?!"
There are a number of conservatives on here, and I have discussions with them all the time. And probably half the time they give me evidence that I'm wrong. I have no beef with that side. I'm just saying, prove your point, and lay off the snarky comments.

If me saying "you haven't talked to a million people isn't really a strong foundation to prove a point" then how is someone saying "The majority of trump supporters don’t understand the realities of manufacturing or that big multinational companies require significant foreign market consumption in order to survive" a strong foundation for proving a point?

I'm simply pointing out that he can't possibly know what the majority of Trump supporters know or don't know. He's grouping them all together and insulting their intelligence because that's the popular thing to do nowadays I guess. I can't stop him if that's what he wants to do. I'm just pointing out that it's a bit ignorant. Not sure how you come to the conclusion I'm trolling. I just don't agree with his point. Maybe I'm a smartass, but that's a very different thing from a troll. That's not what trolling is.

I'm not trying to claim I'm an expert economist. The only argument you've offered is an appeal to authority (a logical fallacy). I basically said maybe they're wrong. I'm not sure why that's so upsetting to you. If it's the "snarkiness", my apologies.

 

[Drew]

The poster I was originally replying to said that no real economists think Trump's tariffs will have the effect he thinks they will. I never said Trump is solely responsible for the 4%+ economic growth we're seeing now. I was simply pointing out that a lot of those same supposedly super smart economists mocked the shit out of Trump when he said he thought we could get to 3 and even 4% growth.

Calm the fuck down.

Hi! We don't know each other, but I work for an investment firm, and one of the things I do is I write our macroeconomic commentary. So, I won't plead to be a super smart economist, but I'd like to think I'm a smart economist, or at a minimum at least an economist. Welcome to the boards!

Q2 GDP is a bit of a fluke, and was impacted by a couple of one-offs, most notably a surge in net exports that contributed about 1.1% to GDP. This was mostly driven by soybean exports to China, as US exporters (and Chinese importers) rushed to get ahead of retaliatory tariffs that kicked in in early July, in response to US tariffs. Since those are exports that were going to happen anyway that were just moved forward in time, the general expectation (and one I certainly hold) is to see an offsetting slowdown in net exports in Q3, and that the two quarters will largely wash. So, over the full year you shouldn't see much of an impact, but whereas Q2 came in strong, Q3 is very likely to slow down.

On the net, between a slow Q1 and a surge in exports in Q2, we're currently sitting at an annual real GDP growth rate of about 3%. That's not too shabby, and if we get through the rest of the year with those numbers holding then that's a solid year. And, the fact that Q2 might have been even higher had we not seen a decline in inventories in the quarter does have me revising my outlook for the second half of the year a little higher - those inventories will need to be replenished, and that speaks to strong consumer demand. So, I don't expect Q3 to be as much of a slowdown as I did prior to seeing the full details of the Q2 release (which was expected to be strong, between the rebound after a slow Q1 and with the aforementioned trade effects in place). But I do expect the GDP growth rate to drop in Q3, between the timing effects of the net exports and the impact to global trade of the tariffs themselves coming on line. And I think the impacts of the steel and aluminum tariffs themselves are only just beginning to be felt, and Q4 to not suffer from the timing issues we'll see in Q3, but to see some evidence of a trade slowdown. If I had to guess, full-year I'd expect us to come in slightly below 3%, maybe in the 2.8% range, though if consumer spending remains strong it's possible we'll surprise to the upside; we just don't know how consumers will respond if companies begin passing through the cost of tariffs.

So, if Trump really believes we're going to sustain 4%+ growth (and remember he was talking before the release like this was a lower bound, floating a 5.3% estimate), then yeah, mock away... And I wouldn't be shocked if he pulls a bit of a bait-and-switch as the year goes on and stops talking about real GDP and instead talks about nominal GDP, or ramps up his criticism of Powell for hiking short term rates and blames him for a Q3 slowdown, which is patently stupid since we KNOW we borrowed from Q3 to get the Q2. But, let's not start building statues in Trump's honor just yet, because one quarter we happened to hit 4.1% GDP growth, which is the best growth rate we've had since...

...wait for it...

...2014, when Obama was president. Something Trump totally glossed over while trying to present this quarter as somehow historic.

tl;dr - I'll care when we start to see full-year numbers 4% or above. For now, any one quarter is noisy, and there was a LOT of noise in Q2.

 

[dark_vader]

Hi! We don't know each other, but I work for an investment firm, and one of the things I do is I write our macroeconomic commentary. So, I won't plead to be a super smart economist, but I'd like to think I'm a smart economist, or at a minimum at least an economist. Welcome to the boards!

Q2 GDP is a bit of a fluke, and was impacted by a couple of one-offs, most notably a surge in net exports that contributed about 1.1% to GDP. This was mostly driven by soybean exports to China, as US exporters (and Chinese importers) rushed to get ahead of retaliatory tariffs that kicked in in early July, in response to US tariffs. Since those are exports that were going to happen anyway that were just moved forward in time, the general expectation (and one I certainly hold) is to see an offsetting slowdown in net exports in Q3, and that the two quarters will largely wash. So, over the full year you shouldn't see much of an impact, but whereas Q2 came in strong, Q3 is very likely to slow down.

On the net, between a slow Q1 and a surge in exports in Q2, we're currently sitting at an annual real GDP growth rate of about 3%. That's not too shabby, and if we get through the rest of the year with those numbers holding then that's a solid year. And, the fact that Q2 might have been even higher had we not seen a decline in inventories in the quarter does have me revising my outlook for the second half of the year a little higher - those inventories will need to be replenished, and that speaks to strong consumer demand. So, I don't expect Q3 to be as much of a slowdown as I did prior to seeing the full details of the Q2 release (which was expected to be strong, between the rebound after a slow Q1 and with the aforementioned trade effects in place). But I do expect the GDP growth rate to drop in Q3, between the timing effects of the net exports and the impact to global trade of the tariffs themselves coming on line. And I think the impacts of the steel and aluminum tariffs themselves are only just beginning to be felt, and Q4 to not suffer from the timing issues we'll see in Q3, but to see some evidence of a trade slowdown. If I had to guess, full-year I'd expect us to come in slightly below 3%, maybe in the 2.8% range, though if consumer spending remains strong it's possible we'll surprise to the upside; we just don't know how consumers will respond if companies begin passing through the cost of tariffs.

So, if Trump really believes we're going to sustain 4%+ growth (and remember he was talking before the release like this was a lower bound, floating a 5.3% estimate), then yeah, mock away... And I wouldn't be shocked if he pulls a bit of a bait-and-switch as the year goes on and stops talking about real GDP and instead talks about nominal GDP, or ramps up his criticism of Powell for hiking short term rates and blames him for a Q3 slowdown, which is patently stupid since we KNOW we borrowed from Q3 to get the Q2. But, let's not start building statues in Trump's honor just yet, because one quarter we happened to hit 4.1% GDP growth, which is the best growth rate we've had since...

...wait for it...

...2014, when Obama was president. Something Trump totally glossed over while trying to present this quarter as somehow historic.

tl;dr - I'll care when we start to see full-year numbers 4% or above. For now, any one quarter is noisy, and there was a LOT of noise in Q2.

Hey, thanks for the insight and for not being an asshole while providing it.

 

[Drew]

Hey, thanks for the insight and for not being an asshole while providing it.

While a little tongue-in-cheek, perhaps, I DO mean it when I say that I'd really caution you from making any conclusions about the future growth rate of the economy from the Q2 number. That trade surge is not sustainable, and will weigh on Q3, at a minimum.

I guess the only other thing I'd point out, is that those same "super-smart economists" were projecting a growth ate of 4.2%, according to the Bloomberg consensus estimate. So, Q2 was actually a hair slower than they had forecast, although I don't think anyone's gonna beat themselves up over a tenth of a percentage point. So it's not like they got "proved wrong" or anything here.